Workforce Management
Employee Compensation Cost Breakdown - Wages, Salaries & Employee Benefits by Industry and Occupation
The average US employee costs their employer about $45.42 per hour in total compensation expenses with a little more than 30% of that expense going toward employee benefits and perks.
Author:
April 22, 2024

The average US employee costs their employer about $45.42 per hour in total compensation expenses, excluding members of the armed forces. A little less than 70% ($31.29) of that total compensation was earned in salary and/or wages while a little more than 30% ($14.13) of that expense covered employee benefits and perks according to the BLS.

Benefits and perks cross a number of segments. Below is the full breakdown but as you can imagine, the majority comes from medical, social security, leave, and retirement. While life, disability, dental and vision are all important, the only represent a small percentage of the full medical.

Employers each year invest over $1T into their employee's benefits, this is over 5% of the US GDP. Your firm does the same, employee benefits are often one of the top five expenses each year for an employer, in some industries it is in the top three.

Going one level deeper, the average hourly wage/salary costs were nearly identical between service employees and goods producing employees at $30.34 and $30.31 hours, respectively, whereas the average hourly employee benefits expense was a couple dollars higher for goods-producing employees at $14.44 an hour per employee than for service employees at $12.44 an hour per employee.

Expenses derived from leave, however, whether paid time off or sick leave, were slightly higher for the service industries at $3.34 per hour relative to the $2.82 per hour average leave expense for employees in industries that produce goods.

Employee Compensation Costs by Industry

First, lets take a look by industry. As the following chart illustrates, the information industry had both the largest wage/salary expense at $48.25 per hour and the largest employee benefits expense at $26.60 per hour, for an average total compensation expense of $74.85 per employee per hour.

Despite paying a slightly lower average wage/salary expenses per employee at $47.95 than the information industry’s $48.25, the utilities industry nonetheless has the highest average hourly total employee compensation expense at $76.91 as a result of boasting the largest average hourly employee benefits expense of $28.96.

The other services industry had the lowest average total employee compensation costs of just $17.82, followed by leisure and hospitality at $19.44, and the retail industry at $25.08 before making the jump up to the manufacturing industry, which spends an average of $43.68 on employee compensation per hour.

Interestingly, despite paying the lowest wages and salaries, the other services, leisure and hospitality, and retail industries pay the largest proportion of total employee compensation in the form of wages and salaries. In short, the pay is relatively bad in these industries and the benefits are even relatively worse.

Employee Benefit Expense Breakdown

As noted above, the split between wages/salary expenses and employee benefits expenses was about 70% to 30%.

The 30% of total employee compensation expenses that went toward employee benefits can be further broken down, the largest portion of which went to health insurance of course, which cost private employers about $2.94 per hour per employee on average.

Social Security contributions were the next largest expense at $2.06 per employee per hour, followed by paid leave at $1.67, non-production bonuses at $1.20, and defined contribution benefits which cost employers an average of $1.07 per employee per hour in 2023.

Those 5 employee benefit expenses alone (totally $8.97 per employee/hour) accounted for more than 70% of the average total hourly employee compensation expense of $12.77 per hour.

The least expensive eight benefits expenditures combined to equal a little more than $1 in total cost per employee per hour, or a bit over 8% of the total average employee benefits expense.

While the list stacks up for the minor benefit offerings, with a negligible impact on cost. some of them are the most important to certain segments of employees. As noted above, the split between wages/salary expenses and employee benefits expenses was about 70% to 30%.

Employee Compensation Costs by Occupation Type

Next, lets look at the specific occupation. While workers in private industry cost their employers $43.11 per hour in total compensation expenses, those figures unsurprisingly varied quite significantly based on occupation type.

Management, business, and financial occupations had the highest average hourly compensation costs at $81.72, followed by professional and related occupations at $66.53.

Construction, fishing, farming, and forestry employees cost their employers an average of about $44.50 per hour in compensation expenses, while sales, transportation, and office and administrative employees had an average compensation expense of about $33 per hour. Service industry employees came in at the bottom of the list costing just $21.55 per hour in total compensation.

It is worth noting that the benefits expenses incurred for sales employees is surpassed by all other occupations outside service occupations, and although sales occupations pay higher wages and salaries than transportation and office/administrative jobs, transportation and office/administrative jobs are nonetheless more expensive in total compensation because of their relatively more substantial benefits offerings.

Employee Compensation Costs by Industry & Occupation

When accounting for both industry and occupation type at the same time, the combined effect that these independent factors have on average employee compensation expenses can be seen even more clearly, as in the following charts outlining employee compensation costs by industry, further broken down by occupation type.

For example, management, business, and financial jobs in the professional and business services industry cost their employers ($89.79 per hour) more than $12 more an hour in total compensation expenses than employees in the same field that work in the manufacturing industry ($77.56 per hour).

On the other hand, office and administrative support jobs compensation expenses were slightly more expensive in the manufacturing industry, albeit largely consistent across industries - $34.4 per hour in the manufacturing industry, $32.31 in the professional and business services industry, and $32.38 per hour in the trade, transportation, and utilities industries.

In a future installment, we’ll take a look at how these employee compensation expenses also vary by company size and region as well as how occupation and employee headcount combine to affect average hourly employee compensation cost.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for April 2024
Each month, Mployer Advisor breaks down the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent State Employment and Unemployment Summary to highlight some employment trends across various markets. This is an overview of April’s report. 
April 19, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from March 2024 that was published in April 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The national unemployment rate average fell by one-tenth of a point last month, as US employers added more than 300 thousand new jobs.

Only 6 states recorded a statistically meaningful reduction in unemployment rate, however, led by Arizona at minus 0.3%. 

Florida was the only state to register an increase in unemployment last month, while the remaining 43 states and Washington DC saw no meaningful change in their month-to-month unemployment figures. 

Similarly, only 5 states saw a net increase in jobs over the month, led by Virginia which added almost 17 thousand new entries to in-state payrolls, while the remaining 45 states and DC essentially held steady on net.

There are 5 states plus Washington DC that have unemployment rates above the US national average, down from 6 such states last month plus DC, while 24 states boast unemployment rates below the national average.

Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for April 2024.

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

California posted the highest unemployment rate for the second month in a row, holding steady at 5.3%, followed by Washington DC which ticked up a tenth of a point to 5.2% and swapping places with Nevada who ticked down a tenth of a point to 5.1%.

Rounding out the only other states with unemployment rates higher than the US average are Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington state - which each came in at 3.8% unemployment last month.

Florida, which saw its unemployment rate go up by one-tenth of a point, was the only state to record a statistically significant increase in unemployment last month.

Over the past 12 months, 29 states have recorded meaningful increases in unemployment, led by Rhode Island at plus 1.3%, followed by Connecticut at plus 1.1%, which were the only states that saw their unemployment rates increase by 1% or more over the year.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

For the third straight month, North Dakota and South Dakota recorded the lowest unemployment rates among the states, both holding steady over the month at 2.0% and 2.1%, respectively.

Vermont was next on the list at 2.2% unemployment, followed by Maryland and Nebraska at 2.5% each.

Of the 6 states that recorded a net drop in unemployment rate last month, all but Arizona at minus 0.3% recorded a reduction of just one-tenth of a point. Those states are Maine, Montana, New York, Vermont, and Virginia. 

Massachusetts saw its unemployment rate decrease by one-tenth of a percent over the course of the last 12 months, and it was in fact the only state to record a net decrease in unemployment over that time frame.

States With New Job Losses

No states saw statistically significant job losses last month.

States With New Job Gains

5 states in total saw the total number of jobs being worked in their states increase last month.

As a percentage, Arkansas and Kentucky saw the largest job gains at plus half a percentage point each, while Kansas and Virginia both registered 0.4% increases, rounded out by the 0.3% increase in Georgia.

Looking at the raw number of jobs added, however, Virginia had the biggest month, growing their in-state payrolls by 16,500. For context, that’s 10 thousand more jobs over the month than what Arkansas added. 

Over the last 12 months, Idaho has seen the largest jobs gain in terms of percentage, with a 3.7% increase in payroll entries over the past year. Nevada isn’t far behind with a 3.4% increase over the same time period. 

Mployer Advisor’s Take: 

On the one hand, annualized inflation of 3.5% - as was recorded last month - is lower than inflation has been in all but 6 months out of the past 3 years.

On the other hand, inflation has ticked upward (albeit slightly) now 3 out of the last 4 months. 

The latter trend is what Fed head Jerome Powell is pointing to while signaling that they will likely be delaying the planned interest rate decreases until 2025.

Perhaps even more concerning, Powell indicated that the Fed’s analysis shows that the cause of the lingering inflation may be linked to the increasing difficulty of insuring an economy that is being subjected to increasingly volatile forces, particularly with regard to natural disasters and weather related events.

We will dive further into the new outlook on how uninsurability may be driving inflation in future pieces and what it means, but suffice it to say for now, given the potential scope of the problem that Powell believes has prevented inflation from being tamped out thus far, plans for lower interest rates may as well be on hold indefinitely.

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer Advisor blog.

Economy
The Employment Situation for April 2024
The latest economic release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. added 303 thousand new jobs last month, while the unemployment rate ticked down to 3.8%.
April 5, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from March 2024 that was published in April 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

US employers had another banner month on the hiring front, adding 303 thousand new jobs, while the unemployment rate ticked back down a tenth of a point to 3.8%.

Not only did these job figures exceed expectations, they did so by more than 50% over the approximate 200 thousand jobs that economists were forecasting. 

It’s also worth noting that this report marks the 26th consecutive report with the US average unemployment rate below 4% - which is the longest such streak in nearly half a century.

The healthcare industry saw the largest number of new jobs added last month, with 72 thousand new payroll entries, which is a 20% increase over the 60 thousand new jobs the healthcare industry has averaged over the last 12 months. 

Government jobs had the next largest increase adding 71 thousand new jobs, which was up by more than 30% above its 54 thousand average monthly job additions.

The construction industry also added a significant number of jobs at plus 39 thousand, which is more than two times its monthly average - a trend that was matched by the other services industry, which added 16 thousand jobs last month, doubling the monthly average it has recorded over the past year.

While the social assistance industry saw growth as well, the pace was much slower than usual with the addition of just 9 thousand new jobs last month relative to its monthly average of 22 thousand. 

Perhaps most noteworthy of all the industries that recorded job growth last month, however, is the leisure & hospitality industry, which added 49 thousand jobs last month, beating its 12 month average of 37 thousand, and now finally fully recouping all the jobs the industry lost during the peak of the initial pandemic -4 years in h making.

There was no significant change in employment figures last month in the manufacturing, wholesale, transportation & warehousing, information, finance, professional & business services, mining, natural gas extraction, and quarrying industries.

Average hourly earnings rose by 12 cents to $34.69 last month, which is an increase of three-tenths of a percent. When accounting only for private sector, non-supervisory employees, however, the increase was only 7 cents per hour, bringing the average hourly earnings for this subset of the workforce up to $29.79.

The average workweek increased by one-tenth of an hour to 34.4 hours per week.

Mployer Advisor’s Take

Despite this significant job growth including a net upward revision of more than 20 thousand more jobs than were previously reported in January and February, the wage growth remains relatively slow and stable, which will help keep at bay some of concerns about what these strong economic reports will mean for the interest rate cuts that are expected before the end of the year.

This kind of dynamic of job growth without the corresponding wage growth is only possible because of the entrance (or reentrance) into the job market of more than 400 thousand people last month, bringing the labor participation rate up two-tenths of a point to 62.7%.

Still, the strength of this report undoubtedly increases the likelihood that the three interest rate cuts that the Federal Reserve has penciled in for 2024 will fall in the second half of the year, and any similarly strong reports that come over the next few months may very well push at least one of those cuts into 2025. 

With prices increasing by a very historically reasonable 3.2% (albeit still above the Fed’s target of 2%) as of the most recent data available, continued strong job growth is a lot more likely to delay and/or decrease the forthcoming rate cuts than another flare up in inflation seems to be, which is a pretty great place for this economy to be in, all things considered

Eager for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer Advisor blog here.

Market Insights
Living Wage vs. Minimum Wage In The Modern Age
While the concept of a living wage has become an issue of increasing importance to both employers and employees in recent years, the number of workers actually earning a living wage has been steadily decreasing at the same time - though that decrease has not been experienced across industries and/or geographies in equal measure.
April 1, 2024

While the concept of a living wage has become an issue of increasing importance to both employers and employees in recent years, the number of workers actually earning a living wage has been steadily decreasing at the same time - though that decrease has not been experienced across industries and/or geographies in equal measure.

It may once have been easy to confuse minimum wage standards with living wage standards. In fact, the federal minimum wage was initially devised in part to ensure a living wage, those standards long ago diverged with cost of living significantly outpacing minimum wage increases on balance since the 1950s.

That said, the chasm between minimum wage and living wage seems to have become all the more stark in recent years, especially during the pandemic recovery when workers paid well above minimum wage found themselves unable to keep up as cost of living climbed faster than rising wages despite (and because of?) the historically labor-friendly labor market. 

Inflation has largely been under control for the better part of a year now, with the last 9 months holding steady below 4% annualized, but cost of living remains high and the minimum wage remains exactly where it has been for the last 15 years - 7 dollars and 25 cents an hour.

That $7.25 an hour in 2009 would be worth $10.58 today accounting for inflation, etc. Meanwhile, as of 2022, the average living wage in the US according to MIT was just over $25 dollars an hour at the time, or $27.53 in today’s dollars. 

With more workers than ever failing to secure a living wage, the repercussions of this situation are likely to be felt far beyond those who are personally affected, though not all industries are contributing equally to the issue nor are all cities/states/regions responding passively to the growing problem.

Industries With the Highest Living Wages

According to data from Revelio Labs, more than one third of workers (36%) employed by the top one thousand companies in the US are paid less than a living wage, defined here as a wage sufficient for two full-time workers to support themselves as well as two dependents. Even worse, nearly 1 out of 5 of those employees (19.2%) does not make enough money to meet basic needs. 

As the following graphic illustrates, among the 10 largest industries in terms of total number of employees (which collectively account for 10% of the US workforce), the industries involving technology development dominate the upper end of the scale, with the software, computer services, technology hardware, and pharmaceuticals/biotech industries all paying more than 80% of their employees at or above the living wage threshold.

On the other extreme, both the restaurant and leisure as well as the retail industries pay living wages to fewer than 40% of their employees, while the commercial support services, medical equipment, banking, and industrial goods industries all pay living wages to about 70% to 80% of their employees. 

Even when taking into account geographic variance in cost of living, the big picture doesn’t change much, although the following graphic seems to indicate a somewhat less favorable view of the tech industry’s propensity toward paying living wages when factoring for local cost of living, with the total percentage of employees that are paid a living wage in the software and pharmaceuticals/biotech industries dropping by between 3% and 4%, respectively.

Mostly, however, the information best illustrated by this graphic may simply be that industries like tech and media tend to gravitate toward areas with a relatively higher cost of living while the more industrial industries tend to be located in areas with a relatively lower cost of living compared to the national average.

Minimum Wage Across States

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington DC currently has the highest minimum wage among ‘states’ at $17 per hour, followed by Washington state at $16.26, then California and New York at $16 each. 

Beyond the 5 states that have no internally legislated minimum wage and are therefore subject only to the federal minimum wage standard (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee), there are 15 states that have set their minimum wage to the current federal level of $7.25 per hour - Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

Average minimum wage across the remaining states is about $13 per hour.

Minimum Wage Increases Coming Soon

There are 9 states that currently have enacted increases to their current minimum wage thresholds that have not been enacted yet:

  • Delaware: Increase of $1.75 from $13.25 to $15 effective January 1, 2025
  • Florida: A series of three minimum wage increases of $1 each are set to occur on September 30th of each of the next three years, raising the statewide minimum wage from $12 up to $15 by October 1, 2026.
  • Hawaii: 2 minimum wage increases are currently planned, raising the current minimum wage of $14 per hour up to $16 per hour effective on January 1, 2026 followed by another $2 increase up to $18 per hour two years later, effective on January 1, 2028.
  • Illinois: $1 increase from $14 per hour up to $15 per hour effective on January 1, 2025.
  • Michigan: Annual rate hikes are planned for January 1 of each of the next 6 years, increasing the statewide minimum wage from $10.33 per hour up to $12.05 by 2031.
  • Nebraska: 2 minimum wage increases of $1.50 each are currently planned to take effect on January 1 of 2025 and 2026, respectively, increasing the current minimum wage from $12 to $15.
  • Nevada: On July 1 of 2024, Nevada’s minimum wage will climb from $11.25 to $12.
  • Rhode Island: The minimum wage is set to increase by $1 per hour on January 1, 2025, bringing the pay rate up from $14 per hour to $15.
  • Virginia: 2 minimum wage increases of $1.50 each are currently planned to take effect on January 1 of 2025 and 2026, respectively, increasing the current minimum wage from $12 to $15.

What Comes Next?

It’s been almost 12 years since fast food workers launched the Fight for 15 movement to push for better pay (specifically $15 per hour) as well as better/safer working conditions. Currently, the US average living wage is about $27 per hour - nearly double the lofty (and obviously unachieved) goal that $15 per hour represented little more than a decade ago.

In the 85 years since the federal minimum wage was first introduced, it has been raised at least 23 times - most recently in 2009 - with an increase on average more than once every 4 years, but never in the past had more than 10 years passed in between increases, which makes the current 12 year pause all the more noteworthy. Perhaps even more concerning is that the previous record gap between federal minimum wage threshold increases was between 1997 and 2007, which indicates a troubling trend.

Some states are evidently trying to take up the mantle in lieu of waiting for further federal action, but even among the states with the highest planned minimum wages, those thresholds fall significantly short of the living wage standard.

It is also worth noting that all of the states that currently have minimum wage increases set on the books also already have a statewide minimum wage threshold that is meaningfully higher than the current federal standard. 

With 40% of states effectively mirroring the federal minimum wage standard, this problem will likely only worsen in the near term and become exacerbated on a regional basis, until some kind of federal solution is enacted.

Still, whenever Congress eventually gets around to increasing the federal minimum wage again, based on current conditions there is virtually zero chance that the increase will close much of let alone all of the gap between the minimum wage and living wage in a given area. 

Of course, failure to raise minimum wage standards to meet base standard of living expectations does no preclude other factors and/or market forces from reversing the trend toward larger proportions of the workforce earning unlivable wages, but whatever those factors may be they have yet to emerge, and the long-term implications of these conditions remain unclear.

Compliance & Policy
Legal/Compliance Roundup - March 2024
Each month, Mployer Advisor collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.
March 29, 2024

Each month, Mployer Advisor collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources. 

Federal Prescription Data Reporting Updates

RxDC reports for calendar year 2023 are due June 3, 2024 in accordance with the Title II, Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

While this information is usually submitted by carriers, pharmacy benefits managers, and third party admins - these entities will often need to seek out information directly from employers and can be expected to do so as the submission deadline approaches.

Some of the noteworthy updates to this year’s submission instructions include:

  • Clarification that nutritional supplements, over-the-counter medication, and medical devices are not to be included on lists of prescription drugs;
  • Simplification of the total monthly premium calculation, now computed by dividing the total annual premium by twelve;
  • Simplification of premiums calculation accounting for paid claims instead of incurred claims;
  • Addition of a new column to input enrollment data; and
  • Instructions on how to submit large data files that exceed the maximum allowable limit, as well as updated instructions on how to input various other data;

Click here for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2023 instruction guide for RxDC submissions.

2023 EEO-1 Component 1 Submissions Due Date Approaching

Collection of EE0-1 Component 1 data will open on April 30, 2024 - with a final deadline for EEO-1 Component 1 submissions currently set for June 4, 2024.

Check the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) website for updates as well as an instruction booklet and file submission specifications, which the EEOC expects to have posted by March 19, 2024. 

This filing must be submitted by every company that has 100 or more employees across all locations and/or is affiliated with a company that has 100 or more employees through common ownership or centralized management. 

Further, this filing must also be submitted by any company with 50 employees or more that has a contract with the federal government worth at least $50,000 or has an establishment that holds a federal contract worth at least $50,000. 

Companies or establishments thereof that are federal contractors and serve as depositories of federal funds no matter how much or how little, as well as financial entities that are issuing and paying agents for US Savings Bonds and Savings notes must also submit this form. 

Updates regarding the timely, etc. will be posted here on the EEO-1 website.

OSHA Form 300-A Electronic Submissions Past Due

Electronic submissions of form 300-A was due March 2, 2024 for non-exempt companies and establishments, which include firms that had 250 or more employees during 2023, or 20 or more employees in industries designated as high risk. 

Form 300 and 301 was also due on March 2 for qualifying institutions, which include firms in high-hazard industries that had 100 employees or more during 2023.

Click here for more information about how and where to submit these forms in addition to guidance in determining what your organization is required to submit.  

Employee vs. Independent Contractor Classification

As of March 11, 2024, the Department of Labor effectively reverted back to ‘the economic reality’ test for determining whether a given worker should be classified as an employee or as an independent contractor.

The economic reality test takes into account the following 6 factors when evaluating a workers employment status and classification:

  • Whether it is possible for the worker to either profit or lose money as a result of the arrangement;
  • What investments have the employer and worker each made toward completing the work;
  • Is the work relationship a more permanent arrangement or more temporary;
  • How much control does the employer exert over the worker’s process;
  • How crucial is the worker’s output to the employer’s business; and
  • The levels of skill and initiative possessed by the worker.

You can find more information from the DOL on determining employee and contractor status here.

Employers Rejecting Job Applicants Due to Credit Reports Must Now Provide Credit Rating Agency Info 

As of March 20, 2024 enforcement began for Consumer Protection Bureau’s rule requiring Employers that reject job applicants due to information obtained through a credit report to provide the rejected applicant with information about the credit reporting agency from which the report was obtained, including name, address, and telephone number.

This rule, which went into effect in April of 2023, is an update to 2018’s Summary of Your Rights Under The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

You can read more about the new rule, its impact, and enforcement here.

Retirement Planning
401ks from the Employee Perspective - Savings & Contribution Benchmarking
Too often, misconceptions can lead employees to put off or minimize retirement savings in the near term, without realizing the impact those delays and that underinvestment will have in the long run, which can have negative consequences for employees later in their careers as they try to make up lost ground. 
March 25, 2024

The concept of a ‘retirement age’ is tragic in a sense, because it causes so many people to conceive of retirement as something that can be achieved passively like a milestone similar to a birthday, with little input required to get there beyond waiting out the passage of time.

‘Retirement age’ as a term also somewhat implies that the age of retirement is expected to be the same for everyone, while age is one of the least relevant of several factors that will ultimately determine if and when any given person is capable of retiring from the workforce and maintaining their expected standard of living. 

Too often these misconceptions can lead employees to put off or minimize retirement savings in the near term, without realizing the impact those delays and under investments will have in the long run, which can have severely negative consequences for employees later in their careers as they try to make up for lost ground. 

Last week, we discussed 401ks largely from an employer perspective and provided some benchmarking data that can help organizations better understand how their retirement benefit offerings compare to the market, here we will take a closer look at retirement savings from the perspective of individual workers, account holders, and would-be retirees.

For employers who want to optimize the value of the benefits they offer, it is necessary but not sufficient that employees internalize the value of those benefits in line with market expectations, but employees must also believe on a personal level that their individual retirement position is secure and on track relative to both their peers and their own subjective situational goals. 

How Much Should Employees Be Saving For Retirement?

It’s natural for employees to have many varied questions about their retirement options and considerations, of course, but almost no matter what kind of retirement a given employee may be envisioning, the best answer to the question of how to attain that vision involves a recommendation to start saving more money sooner.

In order to maximize the benefits of earnings compounding over a longer period, the best time to start saving for retirement was any time between day one on the job and yesterday, but the second best time to start saving is now. 


And while there are a number of factors of varying complexity that can affect both retirement goals and the steps necessary to achieve them (e.g. geography, expenses, age, etc.), this recent piece from CNN highlights a basic retirement savings outline crafted by Fidelity Investments that is a good starting point to help employees to get their bearings at the very least:

  • Aim to have saved an amount approximately equivalent to one year’s  salary by the age of 30;
  • Aim to have saved 3 times annual salary by the age of 40;
  • Aim to have saved 6 times annual salary by the age of 50;
  • Aim to have saved 8 times annual salary by the age of 60; and
  • Aim to have saved 10 times annual salary by the age of 67.

Of course, while the simplicity of this framework is certainly a strength in terms of its memorability and general applicability, that same simplicity is also a weakness when it comes to more specific, precise, or actionable advice. 

For example, although relative standard of living considerations are largely accounted for by using annual salary as a base unit (assuming one’s annual salary affords a comparable standard of living to what they hope to maintain in retirement), and retirement age is fixed at 67 in line with when full social security benefit payouts currently become available, the verbs ‘to have saved’ are doing a lot of heavy lifting without providing any detail about monthly savings breakdowns or how interest rates, raises, and contribution timing fit into the equation.

How Much Are Employees Actually Saving For Retirement?

Perhaps the greater weakness in Fidelity’s simplified retirement savings framework, however, is less about the lack of detail or actionability and more about the aspirational nature of the framework, which can be disconnected from the reality of what a given employee can potentially reproduce in light of their age, location, job, pay rate, and other circumstances.

In order to learn more about the reality on the ground for how employees are engaging with their 401k savings, real world data is likely going to be a better source of information than general guidelines. 

As the following graphics illustrates, two variables that have a significant impact on both contribution rates and total retirement account savings value are the account holder’s age and their tenure with their current company.

Clearly, older workers have had more time both to contribute to their 401k accounts and for those contributions to compound and grow, with workers over 65 years of age having a median of a little over 70 thousand dollars in those accounts while workers at the age of about 45 years old only had a median of about 38 thousand.

Note across the age ranges, the average savings figures are often about 3 times larger than the median savings figures, indicating that the majority of value contained within 401k accounts is skewed toward the accounts with above average levels of savings. 

While length of time on the job is certainly correlated to age and both increase alongside 401k savings over time, what may be most noteworthy about the age and tenure comparison is just how much more impactful tenure can be in terms of overall savings.

As the following graphic indicates, staying with a company for 10 plus years can reap major rewards in terms of retirement savings - of course how much of that outcome is dependent on rising through the ranks over an extended tenure isn’t clear from the available data.

Still, it is hard not to look at these graphs and see some indication of how valuable internal talent development and two-way loyalty can be for both employers and employees both during the tenure of the work and after leaving the workforce.

It is also worth pointing out that average 401k savings relative to tenure is about twice as large as median 401k savings relative to tenure, which is a less sizable wealth gap than average 401k savings relative to age, which was about 3 times larger than median 401k savings relative to age. 

These figures seem to show that longer tenure is more positively correlated with earning above average pay than getting older is positively correlated with earning above average pay. 

How Much Are Employees Contributing To Their 401ks? 

Combined employer plus employee contribution increases with age, as one would expect, but it is not as significant as one would expect - or hope.

The average combined employer and employee contribution rate is approximately 5%. Contributions begin at around 4% for individuals aged 20-29 and exhibit a gradual increase, reaching a peak of about 5.2% among the 50-59 and 60-69 age brackets.

A deeper analysis suggests that the primary driver behind this progressive increase is enhanced job tenure. As employees remain longer with their employers, they not only become more inclined to save for retirement but also benefit from mechanisms like auto-escalation features within 401(k) plans. This trend underscores the significant role that sustained employment plays in bolstering retirement savings efforts.

Recommendations For Your Employees

  • Maximize employer contribution matching whenever feasible 
  • Increase contribution 1% a year until on track to meet goals
  • Promote using and abiding to auto-enrollment and auto-escalation to help employees not fall behind
  • Promote catch-up contributions for employees age 50 and older who can add up to an additional $7,500 per year into their 401ks in 2024.

As the Baby Boomer generation continues to depart from the workforce and begins to test the capacity of our infrastructure and our country’s ability to care for its aging citizenry, the stark truths that successful retirement can almost only ever be attained through diligent proactive effort and is in no way guaranteed will become increasingly obvious for employees at all stages in their careers. 

Forward-looking companies should do more now to ensure their employees are well-positioned to manage the challenges they will meet when their careers have come to an end, which in turn will build loyalty, improve the expected outcomes, and enable employees to better focus on the challenges they encounter in their careers along the way  to the mutual benefit of everyone involved.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for March 2024
Each month, Mployer Advisor breaks down the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent State Employment and Unemployment Summary to highlight some employment trends across various markets. This is an overview of March’s report. 
March 22, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from February 2024 that was published in March 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Despite an overall increase of two-tenths of a point in the national unemployment rate over the same time period, the vast majority of the country (44 states plus Washington DC) saw their state unemployment rate essentially hold steady over the month, while the states that saw a meaningful increase or decrease in unemployment rate were evenly split at 3 apiece.

As for new job additions, the country as a whole had an increase of 275 thousand new jobs, but similar to unemployment rates, 46 states plus Washington DC saw no significant change in their net payroll figures while only 4 states recorded net job gains.

Currently there are 6 states plus Washington DC that have unemployment rates above the US national average of 3.9%, while there are 23 states with unemployment rates below the national average.

Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for March 2024.

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

California, at 5.3% unemployment, ended Nevada's (5.2% unemployment) long reign as the state with the highest unemployment rate.

Washington DC, at 5.1% unemployment, was the only other ‘state’ at or above 5%, although there were 4 states between 4% and 5% - Idaho and New Jersey at 4.8% each, and Washington and New York at 4.7% and 4.4%, respectively.

Over the month, only 3 states recorded an increase in unemployment rate - Idaho at plus 0.3%, followed by Connecticut and Washington at plus 0.1% each.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

The Dakotas collectively topped the list of states with the lowest unemployment rates for the second month in a row, although they switched positions to put North Dakota on top this time at 2.0% while South Dakota was close behind at 2.1%.

The states with the next lowest unemployment rates recorded last month were Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Minnesota at 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.6%, 2.7%, and 2.8%, respectively.

3 states saw meaningful reductions in unemployment rate over the month - Tennessee and Wisconsin, which each saw their unemployment rates drop by 0.2%, whereas Massachusetts managed a 0.1% decrease in unemployment.

Over the prior 12 months, only 3 states recorded net reductions in unemployment, led by Massachusetts at minus 0.7%, followed by Pennsylvania and Wyoming at minus 0.3% each.

States With New Job Losses

No states saw statistically significant job losses last month/year.

States With New Job Gains

Of the 4 states that recorded net job additions last month, Iowa saw the largest percentage gain at plus 0.7%, followed by Illinois and Texas at plus 0.4% and Michigan at plus 0.3%.

Texas was the state that had the largest gain in terms of total net payroll entries, adding nearly 50 thousand new jobs over the month. Illinois was next on the list at about plus 23 thousand. Michigan and Iowa added about 15 thousand and 11 thousand net jobs, respectively.

Over the last 12 months, Nevada has the largest percentage gain in net jobs at plus 3.4%, followed by Alaska at 3.1% and South Carolina at 3.0%. The largest number of total new jobs over the year went to Texas, Florida, California, and New York.

Mployer Advisor’s Take: 

The Federal Reserve chose to hold off on lowering key interest rates when it convened earlier this week, citing increased inflationary forecasts, but Fed officials nonetheless reinforced their expectation that they will reduce those rates by 0.75% by the end of the year.

Markets responded favorably to the news, but any reaffirmation of rate-lowering plans remains contingent on inflation returning to 2023 levels after an unexpected upward creep in the first couple of months of 2024.

The Fed will meet again in May to reassess the situation and will be keeping a close eye on those inflation numbers in the meantime.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the economy and job market can hold steady alongside the Fed while interest rates continue in their holding pattern perhaps a little longer than expected before the Fed attempts to execute the final stages of their aimed-for soft landing. 

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer Advisor blog.